Today's letters: Compromise

Published: Sunday, February 24, 2013 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Friday, February 22, 2013 at 5:44 p.m.

To the editor: A recent editorial discussing the lack of compromise in Washington raised points with which it would be hard to disagree.

But I must disagree with the premise that compromise for the sake of action is always the right solution.

Several factors must be present for compromise to be acceptable. One such condition is confidence that the terms of the compromise will be fulfilled. In this regard, past experience can be the best teacher. Conveniently, the editorial itself provided that opportunity.

The editorial first mentioned two issues that need immediate action — immigration and deficits. Separately, the editorial mentioned the 1980s compromises between Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill. Coincidentally, among the subjects of the 1980s compromises were … immigration and deficits.

In both cases, Reagan compromised conservative principles based on promises of future action from O’Neill. O’Neill promised border security and expenditure reductions in exchange for amnesty and tax increases, respectively. O’Neill and the Democrats failed to follow through on either promise. Now, 30 years later, we are in even worse shape on both issues.

Did compromise work in the 1980s? History shows it failed to solve either problem. In other words, compromise is often a failure — even worse than a four-letter word.

Paul Aaron

Hendersonville

Right to vote

To the editor: I am writing concerning the issue of voter registration and the movement to require a government-issued photo ID in order to vote on state and national legislation and candidates. On behalf of the local chapter of Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), I support the NAACP opposition to make this a legal requirement.

PFLAG is concerned about equality for all people, and this would disenfranchise many — not only the poor and elderly but also our transgender citizens. Many transgender individuals have not been able to change their driver’s licenses or their passports to match their apparent gender presentation and would therefore be denied their right to vote. It is estimated that this could affect 25,000 people in North Carolina in addition to the hundreds of thousands of our financially handicapped and elderly people.

To my knowledge, there has been no proper study in our state to show a significant number of illegal voters. Other state studies have shown that the percentage is almost nonexistent. To impose an added and unnecessary burden upon many of our citizens would be an injustice to our sacred right to vote.

<p>To the editor: A recent editorial discussing the lack of compromise in Washington raised points with which it would be hard to disagree.</p><p>But I must disagree with the premise that compromise for the sake of action is always the right solution.</p><p>Several factors must be present for compromise to be acceptable. One such condition is confidence that the terms of the compromise will be fulfilled. In this regard, past experience can be the best teacher. Conveniently, the editorial itself provided that opportunity.</p><p>The editorial first mentioned two issues that need immediate action  immigration and deficits. Separately, the editorial mentioned the 1980s compromises between Ronald Reagan and Tip O’Neill. Coincidentally, among the subjects of the 1980s compromises were immigration and deficits.</p><p>In both cases, Reagan compromised conservative principles based on promises of future action from O’Neill. O’Neill promised border security and expenditure reductions in exchange for amnesty and tax increases, respectively. O’Neill and the Democrats failed to follow through on either promise. Now, 30 years later, we are in even worse shape on both issues.</p><p>Did compromise work in the 1980s? History shows it failed to solve either problem. In other words, compromise is often a failure  even worse than a four-letter word.</p><p><em>Paul Aaron</em></p><p><em>Hendersonville</em></p><h3>Right to vote</h3>
<p>To the editor: I am writing concerning the issue of voter registration and the movement to require a government-issued photo ID in order to vote on state and national legislation and candidates. On behalf of the local chapter of Parents, Family and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), I support the NAACP opposition to make this a legal requirement.</p><p>PFLAG is concerned about equality for all people, and this would disenfranchise many  not only the poor and elderly but also our transgender citizens. Many transgender individuals have not been able to change their driver’s licenses or their passports to match their apparent gender presentation and would therefore be denied their right to vote. It is estimated that this could affect 25,000 people in North Carolina in addition to the hundreds of thousands of our financially handicapped and elderly people.</p><p>To my knowledge, there has been no proper study in our state to show a significant number of illegal voters. Other state studies have shown that the percentage is almost nonexistent. To impose an added and unnecessary burden upon many of our citizens would be an injustice to our sacred right to vote.</p><p><em>Rev. Jerry Miller</em></p><p><em>Hendersonville</em></p>